Connect with us

Features

Geneva Toils & Tamashas: Serial indictments and puerile Tamil letter-politics

Published

on

by Rajan Philips

The 48th Session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva that started proceedings on August 13, is already remarkable for two new developments. The first is the enabling of the UN High Commissioner to update in real time the charge sheet against the Sri Lankan government. This is not due to any arrogation of powers on the part of the High Commissioner, but is entirely the result of the government forever piling on its past follies with new ones. The indictments in Geneva are becoming serial only because the government’s misdoings in law and order are already serial.

The second development is more hilarious than serious, and it is about competing letters that are reported to have been sent to the High Commissioner by Tamil political personas. News about the letter writing tamasha was restricted to the Tamil media, until DBS Jeyaraj brought it out to laugh out loud in the open. It is difficult to project the future trajectory of the new letter writing politics, but there are plenty of political tamashas from the past that will fit the present episode into a familiar pre-war pattern.

High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet’s opening statement on Sri Lanka has more references to the current goings-on than any past occurrences. Early In her third paragraph, Dr. Bachelet alludes to the “corrosive impact that militarization and the lack of accountability continue to have on fundamental rights, civic space, democratic institutions, social cohesion and sustainable development.” In the very next, fourth paragraph, she takes on the “new state of emergency” and expresses concern that “emergency regulations are very broad and may further expand the role of the military in civilian functions.” Then the sting, “the Office will be closely monitoring their application.”

There you have it. The monitoring of the application of Emergency Regulations is now on the UNHRC radar. It is not that UNHRC is not going crash the sky down on the Rajapaksa presidency, but so long as the Sri Lankan file remains open in Geneva the list of charges and indictments against the Rajapaksa government will keep growing. The Commissioner’s statement lists all the recent transgressions of the government in addition to declaring Emergency Rule.

The highlights include excessive force on peaceful protesters, and their arrests and detention in quarantine centres; continuing deaths in police custody besides torture and ill-treatment by law enforcement officials; the suspension of the case against former Navy commander Wasantha Karannagoda for the enforced disappearances of 11 men in 2008 and 2009; and the Presidential pardon of Duminda Silva, who was convicted for murder.

The unenviable task of defending the indefensible fell to the new Sri Lankan Foreign Minister Prof. GL Peiris (GLP), who has returned to his old portfolio after a ragged stint as Minister of Education. He had little to say about the current goings-on and not too much to say about the positive achievements of the government. He of course rejected the suggestion of any “external mechanism to investigate issues in Sri Lanka.”

There may never come a time when an external mechanism gets established in Sri Lanka. But talking about it will never end until Sri Lanka has a government that finds the will and resources to put its own house of disorder into order. If there has been any lingering illusion that the present government may yet rise up to this task, that was blown away, yet again, by the thuggish antics of State Minister Lohan Ratwatte in the Anuradhapura Prisons.

Apparently, he held the portfolio for Prison Reforms and Prisoners Rehabilitation, and Gem and Jewellery Industries – a very ‘methodical’ (the term President GR has used to explain the logic behind his cabinet assignments) combination of duties. After the Anuradhapura fiasco, Mr. Ratwatte remains State Minister of Gem and Jewelry Related Industries, minus Prison Reforms and Prisoners Rehabilitation. He half-resigned after Anuradhapura and the President accepted the half-resignation without fully firing him. Talk about domestic mechanisms!

Mastermind and the Scapegoat

Not surprisingly, the 2019 Easter Sunday bombings have also become a permanent item of concern for UNHRC. The Commissioner expressed solidarity with the victims and religious leaders and their cry for truth, justice, and full accounting for the tragedy. She also expressed the Commission’s deep concern about the prolonged detention of Lawyer Hejaaz Hizbullah (now over) 16 months under the Prevention of Terrorism Act without trial. Similarly, Ahnaf Jazeem, a teacher and poet, has been detained without any trial since May 2020.

The case of Lawyer Hizbullah has been on UNHRC’s radar for some time. And the Sri Lankan government took note of it and referred to it during a media briefing in Colombo, on September 10, by Defence Secretary, General Kamal Gunaratne. The briefing became a headlined story and General Gunaratne reportedly appeared at the briefing “flanked by Navy Chief VA Nishantha Ulugetenne and IGP C.D. Wickramaratne.” The principal purpose of the meeting was to ‘decry’ alleged efforts by interested parties to implicate the President in the Easter bombings.

Towards the end of the briefing, General Gunaratne brought up the arrest of Lawyer Hizbullah and the fact that “the Lawyer’s arrest had been raised at the highest level at the Geneva-based United Nations Human Rights Council.” He went to assert that “in spite of representations made to the UNHRC on behalf of the lawyer, they had irrefutable evidence regarding the detainee’s involvement in Easter carnage.” The question is if there is even plausible, let alone irrefutable, evidence why could not Mr. Hizbullah be put on trial?

Those who follow this matter in Sri Lanka and quite passionately outside Sri Lanka say that there is not even a shred of evidence against Mr. Hizbullah. And government lawyers in the Attorney General’s Department have lately gone quiet on the matter. Earlier one of them even described Mr. Hizbullah as a behind-the-scenes terrorist operator during a court hearing. If government lawyers could be so unkindly indifferent to the plight of one of their colleagues and a lawyer of some repute, what fairness could others expect from their system of justice.

To be clear, the reason why Defence Secretary General Gunaratne brought up the arrest of Hizbullah at the media briefing likely has nothing to do with prosecuting the long detained lawyer. It also may not have been intended as a rebuke to the UNHRC. A plausible, not necessarily irrefutable, reason could be that he wanted to prop up the detained lawyer as a scapegoat for Easter bombings to divert attention from the gossipy search for the ‘real’ mastermind behind it.

The attempted diversion would seem to have backfired. You cannot scapegoat Hizbullah any worse than he has been hurt so far. But the tag of mastermind may have escaped the gossipy underworld and got stuck in the respectable public domain. To be fair, General Gunaratne did not use the term ‘mastermind’; other Rajapaksa supporters did, but only to ‘decry’, just as the General did, the mastermind allegation that was mostly social media gossip. Not anymore. And no one can ask for proof of any kind, since the government itself is not interested in proving or disproving anything about the Easter bombings but for His Eminence, Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith.

How far the Cardinal will go in his search for truth and accountability for the Easter carnage is not a matter for mortal minds. He seems to have indicated that he is prepared to go to Geneva via the Vatican. And he has demonstrated to Prime Minister Mahinda Rajapaksa that a Sri Lankan Head of Government or State can go to Italy or Rome, or New York, as much as they want, but to visit the Vatican, they will need a visa from the Local Church. But there is more than a stroke of irony in the Cardinal’s search for truth and accountability through the western medium of Human Rights.

“Monavada me manawa himikam (What are these human rights)?,” Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith haughtily asked in a sermon at St. Matthew’s Church, Ekala, in September 2018, as the Journalist Sanjeewa Fernando has poignantly reminded us (Daily Mirror, 15 September 21). I wrote about it then, with a picture of Elanor Roosevelt holding the English translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, because the Cardinal’s sermon and reports about it hit Sri Lanka when the UN was celebrating the 70th anniversary of the universal declaration. This was also when Ranil Wickremesinghe and Mangala Samaraweera were being savaged by nationalists for co-sponsoring the infamous UNHRC Resolution 30/01 in Geneva. Now no one asks, what are these human rights? If at all, the question could be, who are you to ask?

Letter Politics

Resolution 30/01 has now grown to Resolution 46/01 and the ‘progress’ in between has been less than a handful going by what Minister Peiris listed as his government’s achievements in his address to UNHRC. Included in his list are the work of agencies that were established through the efforts of the late Mangala Samaraweera in the face of opposition by the SLPP and others. Despite earlier threats to dismantling these agencies (The Office on Missing Persons (OMP), The Office for Reparations (OR), and The Office for National Unity and Reconciliation (ONUR), the government is now taking credit for their work. But UNHRC resolutions are not going to end and what has become a bi-annual UN audit on the government is likely to continue indefinitely. The government’s frustrations are obvious even though it has far worse things to worry about.

There is also growing frustration of a different kind in Tamil political circles and that seems to have been the trigger behind the recent letter politics involving Tamil MPs and ex-MPs. In a matter of weeks, three letters are reported to have been sent to High Commissioner Michelle Bachelet – all three letters reportedly dealing with developments in Sri Lanka affecting the Tamils after the Commission’s March 2021 Resolution 46/01. And all three letters have been sent by people associated with the TNA, with the sole exception of CV Wigneswaran, the former Chief Minister and now MP, who is no longer with the TNA. He reportedly signed the first letter along with six current and former MPs belonging to TELO and PLOTE organizations.

TELO and PLOTE are the smaller constituent parties of the TNA along with the dominant ITAK (aka Federal Party), and the purpose of the first letter was to pre-empt a letter that was to be sent on behalf of the TNA and was being prepared by TNA leader R. Sampanthan. The TNA leadership was obviously miffed by being upstaged by its smaller partners, and eventually sent its own letter under Mr. Sampanthan’s singular signature. The tamasha did not end with it. A rogue third letter was also sent allegedly by nine dissidents – all belonging to Mr. Sampanthan’s ITAK organization, who took exception to the TNA leader quoting (in his letter) a UN Experts Panel report that associated not only the Government of Sri Lanka but also the LTTE with potential war crimes and crimes against humanity.

It might be more challenging to keep pace with the egotistical, if not petty, goings-on in the world of Sri Lankan Tamil politics than to monitor the human rights violations of the government of Sri Lanka. Even the UNHRC will be constrained to focus on the latter and ignore the former. The irony is that the human rights situation in Sri Lanka may have become a permanently self-sustaining matter for the UNHRC in Geneva. And it will likely keep running its course, with resolution after resolution, even if there is no corresponding change on the ground in Sri Lanka. And nothing can change in Sri Lanka with a government that is increasingly going wayward, on the one hand, and with Tamil political leaders, on the other hand, who can do nothing more than write competing but redundant letters.



Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

The Paradox of Trump Power: Contested Authoritarian at Home, Uncontested Bully Abroad

Published

on

Protests and a vigil have been held in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where the shooting of Renee Nicole Good occurred on Wednesday (photo courtesy BBC)

The Trump paradox is easily explained at one level. The US President unleashes American superpower and tariff power abroad with impunity and without contestation. But he cannot exercise unconstitutional executive power including tariff power without checks and challenges within America. No American President after World War II has exercised his authority overseas so brazenly and without any congressional referral as Donald Trump is getting accustomed to doing now. And no American President in history has benefited from a pliant Congress and an equally pliant Supreme Court as has Donald Trump in his second term as president.

Yet he is not having his way in his own country the way he is bullying around the world. People are out on the streets protesting against the wannabe king. This week’s killing of 37 year old Renee Good by immigration agents in Minneapolis has brought the City to its edge five years after the police killing of George Floyd. The lower courts are checking the president relentlessly in spite of the Supreme Court, if not in defiance of it. There are cracks in the Trump’s MAGA world, disillusioned by his neglect of the economy and his costly distractions overseas. His ratings are slowly but surely falling. And in an electoral harbinger, New York has elected as its new mayor, Zoran Mamdani – a wholesale antithesis of Donald Trump you can ever find.

Outside America it is a different picture. The world is too divided and too cautious to stand up to Trump as he recklessly dismantles the very world order that his predecessors have been assiduously imposing on the world for nearly a hundred years. A few recent events dramatically illustrate the Trump paradox – his constraints at home and his freewheeling abroad.

Restive America

Two days before Christmas, the US Supreme Court delivered a rare rebuke to the Trump Administration. After a host of rulings that favoured Trump by putting on hold, without full hearing, lower court strictures against the Administration, the Supreme Court by a 6-3 majority decided to leave in place a Federal Court ruling that barred Trump from deploying National Guard troops in Chicago. Trump quietly raised the white flag and before Christmas withdrew the federal troops he had controversially deployed in Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles – all large cities run by Democrats.

But three days after the New Year, Trump airlifted the might of the US Army to encircle Venezuela’s capital Caracas and spirit away the country’s President Nicolás Maduro, and his wife Celia Flores, all the way to New York to stand trial in an American Court. What is not permissible in any American City was carried out with absolute impunity in a foreign capital. It turns out the Administration has no plan for Venezuela after taking out Maduro, other than Trump’s cavalier assertion, “We’re going to run it, essentially.” Essentially, the Trump Administration has let Maduro’s regime without Maduro to run the country but with the US in total control of Venezuela’s oil.

Next on the brazen list is Greenland, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio who manipulated Maduro’s ouster is off to Copenhagen for discussions with the Danish government over the future of Greenland, a semi-autonomous part of Denmark. Military option is not off the table if a simple real estate purchase or a treaty arrangement were to prove infeasible or too complicated. That is the American position as it is now customarily announced from the White House podium by the Administration’s Press Secretary Karolyn Leavitt, a 28 year old Catholic woman from New Hampshire, who reportedly conducts a team prayer for divine help before appearing at the lectern to lecture.

After the Supreme Court ruling and the Venezuela adventure, the third US development relevant to my argument is the shooting and killing of a 37 year old white American woman by a US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer in Minneapolis, at 9:30 in the morning, Wednesday, January 7th. Immediately, the Administration went into pre-emptive attack mode calling the victim a “deranged leftist” and a “domestic terrorist,” and asserting that the ICE officer was acting in self-defense. That line and the description are contrary to what many people know of the victim, as well as what people saw and captured on their phones and cameras.

The victim, Renee Nicole Good, was a mother of three and a prize-winning poet who self-described herself a “poet, writer, wife and mom.” A newcomer to Minneapolis from Colorado, she was active in the community and was a designated “legal observer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activities,” to monitor interactions between ICE agents and civilian protesters that have become the norm in large immigrant cities in America. Renee Good was at the scene in her vehicle to observe ICE operations and community protesters.

In video postings that last a matter of nine seconds, two ICE officers are seen approaching Good’s vehicle and one of them trying to open her door; a bystander is heard screaming “No” as Good is seen trying to drive away; and a third ICE officer is seen standing in front of her moving vehicle, firing twice in the direction of the driver, moving to a side and firing a third time from the side. Good’s car is seen going out of control, careening and coming to a stop on a snowbank. Yet America is being bombarded with two irreconcilable narratives – one manufactured by Trump’s Administration and the other by those at the scene and everyone opposed to the regime.

It adds to the explosiveness of the situation that Good was shot and killed not far from where George Folyd was killed, also in Minneapolis, on 25th May, 2020, choked under the knee of a heartless policeman. And within 48 hours of Good’s killing, two Americans were shot and injured by two federal immigration agents, in Portland, Oregon, on the Westcoast. Trump’s attack on immigrants and the highhanded methods used by ICE agents have become the biggest flashpoint in the political opposition to the Trump presidency. People are organizing protests in places where ICE agents are apprehending immigrants because those who are being aggressively and violently apprehended have long been neighbours, colleagues, small business owners and students in their communities.

Deportation of illegal immigrants is not something that began under Trump. It has been going on in large numbers under all recent presidents including Obama and Biden. But it has never been so cruel and vicious as it is now under Trump. He has turned it into a television spectacle and hired large number of new ICE agents who are politically prejudiced and deployed them without proper training. They raid private homes and public buildings, including schools, looking for immigrants. When faced with protesters they get into clashes rather than deescalating the situation as professional police are trained to do. There is also the fear that the Administration may want to escalate confrontations with protesters to create a pretext for declaring martial law and disrupt the midterm congressional elections in November this year.

But the momentum that Trump was enjoying when he began his second term and started imposing his executive authority, has all but vanished and all within just one year in office. By the time this piece appears in print, the Supreme Court ruling on Trump’s tariffs (expected on Friday) may be out, and if as expected the ruling goes against Trump that will be a massive body blow to the Administration. Trump will of course use a negative court ruling as the reason for all the economic woes under his presidency, but by then even more Americans would have become tired of his perpetually recycled lies and boasts.

An Obliging World

To get back to my starting argument, it is in this increasingly hostile domestic backdrop that Trump has started looking abroad to assert his power without facing any resistance. And the world is obliging. The western leaders in Europe, Canada and Australia are like the three wise monkeys who will see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil – of anything that Trump does or fails to do. Their biggest fear is about the Trump tariffs – that if they say anything critical of Trump he will magnify the tariffs against their exports to the US. That is an understandable concern and it would be interesting to see if anything will change if the US Supreme Court were to rule against Trump and reject his tariff powers.

Outside the West, and with the exception of China, there is no other country that can stand up to Trump’s bullying and erratic wielding of power. They are also not in a position to oppose Trump and face increased tariffs on their exports to the US. Putin is in his own space and appears to be assured that Trump will not hurt him for whatever reason – and there are many of them, real and speculative. The case of the Latin American countries is different as they are part of the Western Hemisphere, where Trump believes he is monarch of all he surveys.

After more than a hundred years of despising America, many communities, not just regimes, in the region seem to be warming up to Trump. The timing of Trump’s sequestering of Venezuela is coinciding with a rising right wing wave and regime change in the region. An October opinion poll showed 53% of Latin American respondents reacting positively to a then potential US intervention in Venezuela while only 18% of US respondents were in favour of intervention. While there were condemnations by Latin American left leaders, seven Latin American countries with right wing governments gave full throated support to Trump’s ouster of Maduro.

The reasons are not difficult to see. The spread of crime induced by the commerce of cocaine has become the number one concern for most Latin Americans. The socio-religious backdrop to this is the evangelisation of Christianity at the expense of the traditional Catholic Church throughout Latin America. And taking a leaf from Trump, Latin Americans have also embraced the bogey of immigration, mainly influenced by the influx of Venezuelans fleeing in large numbers to escape the horrors of the Maduro regime.

But the current changes in Latin America are not necessarily indicative of a durable ideological shift. The traditional left’s base in the subcontinent is still robust and the recent regime changes are perhaps more due to incumbency fatigue than shifts in political orientations. The left has been in power for the greater part of this century and has not been able to provide answers to the real questions that preoccupied the people – economic affordability, crime and cocaine. It has not been electorally smart for the left to ignore the basic questions of the people and focus on grand projects for the intelligentsia. Exhibit #1 is the grand constitutional project in Chile under outgoing President Gabriel Borich, but it is not the only one. More romantic than realistic, Boric’s project titillated liberal constitutionalists the world over, but was roundly rejected by Chileans.

More importantly, and sooner than later, Trump’s intervention in Venezuela and his intended takeover of the country’s oil business will produce lasting backlashes, once the initial right wing euphoria starts subsiding. Apart from the bully force of Trump’s personality, the mastermind behind the intervention in Venezuela and policy approach towards Latin America in general, is Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the former Cuban American Senator from Florida and the principal leader of the group of Cuban neocons in the US. His ultimate objective is said to be achieving regime change in Cuba – apparently a psychological settling of scores on behalf Cuban Americans who have been dead set against Castro’s Cuba after the overthrow of their beloved Batista.

Mr. Rubio is American born and his parents had left Cuba years before Fidel Castro displaced Fulgencio Batista, but the family stories he apparently grew up hearing in Florida have been a large part of his self-acknowledged political makeup. Even so, Secretary Rubio could never have foreseen a situation such as an externally uncontested Trump presidency in which he would be able to play an exceptionally influential role in shaping American policy for Latin America. But as the old Burns’ poem rhymes, “The best-laid plans of men and mice often go awry.”

by Rajan Philips ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

Unsuccessful attempt on President Chandrika’s life

Published

on

Town Hall bomb scene after 1999 attempt on CBK’s life

The Presidential election campaign was drawing to a close. We had campaigned hard but everyone knew that it would be a keenly contested election. A final meeting was scheduled for Saturday December 18, 1999. It was to be held near the Town Hall in Colombo and CBK was to be the chief speaker. I was accommodated in the front row of the stage together with other party leaders.

Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, the Prime Minister, had invited me to be a speaker at his final meeting in Horana. I waited till CBK arrived, spoke briefly to her and left for Horana. I had barely reached Havelock Town when I heard the sound of a blast from near the Town Hall. It was a well planned attempt on the life of CBK by the LTTE. Suicide bombers had come into the well packed grounds with a group of supporters of a Colombo district SLFP MP. Fortunately they had been prevented from coming close to the stage by the barriers set up by the Police.

CBK had finished her speech to a packed audience and was going down the gangway from the stage to her car when the bomber had detonated his bomb killing himself, several policemen, CBKs driver and many onlookers. But for the fact that her driver had driven up to the steps, thereby interposing the steel reinforced Mercedes Benz car between the bomb and CBK she would have been torn to shreds.

When we inspected the Benz it was a mass of twisted metal like a futuristic sculpture. I forgot about Horana and immediately rushed to the general hospital where to my relief I was told that the President was alive and out of danger. Since I had experience of the bombing of the UNP group meeting in Parliament during JRJs time, I rushed to Temple Trees to find that Sunethra Bandaranaike had fortunately promptly come there and was with the children upstairs.

The Temple Trees staff congregating downstairs were wandering about in shock till the arrival of President’s Secretary Balapatabendi. I urged that we should immediately get down Anuruddha Ratwatte -the Deputy Defence Minister, who at that time was in Kandy. A problem arose because helicopters could not fly at night. He was asked to come immediately by road and he did arrive in the shortest time.

Town Hall bomb scene CBK’s

In the meanwhile I suggested that Balapatabendi should broadcast the news that CBK was alive and out of danger as we had done with JRJ after the Parliament bombing. Already news about the attack was swirling because international media was using it as “Breaking News”. Bala and I went to the TV station and as he was getting into the studio I noticed that he was dressed in a black shirt which could have given a bad message to the country. I quickly took off my shirt and exchanged it for Balas black shirt. He then spoke on camera trying to calm the country wide audience dressed in an over-sized shirt.

We went back to Temple Trees and found that the PM and other Cabinet Ministers and relatives had arrived there and were taking charge of the situation. I then went to the General Hospital to see GL Peiris and Alavi Moulana who were in a state of shock and awaiting medical attention. Alavi’s shirt was blood stained and his sons were helplessly moving around asking for immediate medical attention.

After that both sides did not campaign in the remaining few days. The whole country was in a state of shock and disbelief. To the credit of Ranil Wickremesinghe he immediately visited CBK to wish her a speedy recovery and virtually called off his campaign. The shock of the Town Hall blast was compounded when almost at the same time a bomb was set off by the LTTE in Wattala where the UNP was holding a propaganda meeting. Major General Lucky Algama who was in charge of security was killed in this blast together with several UNP supporters.

Presidential Election December 2019

The presidential election was held as scheduled. We witnessed a clear shift of the sentiments of voters towards CBK after the bombing. I went to Kandy to cast my vote early as usual at the Nugawela voting centre. Immediately after that I left for Colombo. All along the road women of all ages were gathering in great numbers to cast their votes. It became clear that a sympathy vote was in the offing, especially among women. They could empathize with CBK who had lost a father and husband and now nearly lost her own life in the cause of public service.

The election results when announced proved that our hunch was correct. The declared results were as follows;

CBK

4,312,157 Votes [51.1 Percent]

Ranil

3,602,748 Votes [42.71 Percent]

Nandana Gunatillake

[JVP] 344,173 [4.08 Percent]

CBK then took a courageous decision which unfortunately backfired on her many years on as I will describe in a succeeding chapter. In the light of possible confusion following the bombing she decided to take her oath of office as the new President immediately though she had several months more to serve in terms of her earlier mandate. Though she had a team of brilliant lawyers including H L de Silva and R K W Goonesekere to advice on constitutional matters such details were not analyzed by her political staff. She took oaths before Chief Justice Sarath Nanda Silva and on the following day left for UK for medical treatment.

(Excepted from Vol. 3 of the Sarath Amunugma autobiography) ✍️

Continue Reading

Features

My experience in turning around the Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka (MBSL)

Published

on

LESSONS FROM MY CAREER: SYNTHESISING MANAGEMENT THEORY WITH PRACTICE – PART 29

The last episode covered the final stages of my work as Advisor to the National Productivity Drive at the Ministry of Industrial Development. Soon after, in September 1998, I accepted the position of Managing Director of the Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka (MBSL). This chapter shares key events and lessons from my time there.

First few weeks at MBSL

The Board agreed that, for the first month, I would work only half-days, as I still had obligations I could not abandon. I was organising the International Convention on Quality Circles 1998, which attracted many foreign participants, and although we had appointed an event organiser, numerous arrangements still required my involvement. I will write more about that Convention later in these memoirs.

Those half-days turned out to be useful. They allowed me to quietly observe and understand the situation. MBSL was in worse shape than I had expected. The financial problems were visible to anyone who read the statements. The bigger crisis, however, was the staff’s morale and the rapid loss of staff members.

During the interim management period, many staff benefits had been cut, and several senior executives had already left. In the first few months, farewell gatherings became routine. It felt like rats leaving a sinking ship. And indeed, the organisation was sinking. Yet I had accepted the challenge — largely because I sensed that the Chairperson could secure government support, which she had already begun to do.

The broader environment added to the tension. The LTTE conflict was still active. Our office building, a very tall building located near the Colpetty junction, was a prime target. It had an Air Force unit with anti-aircraft guns on the rooftop one floor above he boardroom.. No one was allowed there without special permission, even though the area had originally been designed as a rooftop function space.

The first board meeting was quite hilarious because, while we were discussing important strategic issues, the upper floor was reverberating with a baila session, with boots tapping the floor keeping time. Apparently, the unit had an assurance that there would be no air strikes, and they could take a break.

My own office was spacious, but the windows were blocked because Temple Trees — the official residence of the Prime Minister — was clearly visible if not. At first, working without any outside view felt quite oppressive. Eventually, I grew accustomed to it.

Once I began full-time work in October, I carefully examined the situation with the help of my capable team. Several senior employees were not leaving for higher-paying opportunities or foreign jobs — they were committed, though uncertain about the future.

Then came investigations by the Central Bank and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Much of my time was spent responding to information requests and ensuring that all releases of information were approved. Many years previously, MBSL had unintentionally become a subsidiary of the Bank of Ceylon (BOC) when BOC’s investment arm purchased shares that pushed ownership above 50 per cent.

Hence although we were not a deposit taking institution and therefore not under the regulatory oversight of the Central Bank, we were under the Central Bank scrutiny because we were a subsidiary of the BOC. Although we were independent in operations, the customary practice was that the BOC Chairman would also chair MBSL, together with other BOC directors serving on our board. Our Chairperson, Mrs Dayani de Silva, was determined to turn MBSL around.

At that time, we operated two main divisions:

· Corporate finance, including advisory and investment banking; and

· Leasing, including trade finance.

In addition, there were the service divisions such as Human Resources, Secretarial and Finance and Accounting

Staff matters and the trade union

Morale was low. staff resisted the benefit cuts and the shift toward rules that resembled those of government departments. Signing an attendance register was particularly disliked.

I reviewed the situation carefully. Some of the removed benefits saved only trivial amounts. I reinstated those. I also installed an electronic time-card system for everyone — including myself. I announced clearly that I would clock in every day, just as they did. Naturally, the first few months were not easy.

I began holding monthly staff meetings to explain what we were doing, why we were doing it, and where we stood financially. Communication had clearly been lacking earlier, and these meetings helped rebuild trust. I also operated an “open door” policy, welcoming any employee who wished to meet me. The performance appraisal system was another issue. Instead of motivating staff, it had become a source of resentment. I suspended it for two years and asked everyone to work together as one team.

Most employees up to the Deputy Manager level were unionised, affiliated with the Ceylon Bank Employees Union (CBEU), headed by Mr M. R. Shah. The collective agreement was due, and the union presented a long list of demands — many of them impossible, given our financial state. Normally, negotiations take place between the Employers’ Federation of Ceylon (EFC) and the CBEU. The Director General of the EFC, Mr Gotabhaya Dassanayake, advised me first to build mutual confidence, especially as I had never met Mr Shah before.

I invited Mr Shah to my office. Over tea, I openly explained the crisis we were facing, our restructuring plan, and the management approach we intended to adopt. He listened carefully and asked sensible questions. We parted on friendly terms, and more importantly, with a shared understanding.

A month later, negotiations began at the EFC. To my surprise, Mr Shah began by saying that, after speaking with the new Managing Director, he understood our difficulties and accepted the direction we were taking. He then withdrew several demands on the spot. I was relieved, not because demands were dropped, but because he had recognised our sincerity and our plan. Later, Mr Dassanayake telephoned to say he had rarely seen such cooperation. In time, as restructuring succeeded, we gradually restored many benefits. That entire episode reinforced a powerful lesson: honest communication and genuine leadership build trust far faster than confrontation.

Expanding leasing

The board was deeply concerned about the leasing division. Non-performing loans were very high, and they urged me to restrict new business and focus solely on recoveries. I informed the board that management was partly to blame because the staff was pressured to meet stretch targets, and all we got were substandard leasing facilities. Targets without safeguards are never beneficial.

My thinking differed. Aggressive recovery efforts often demoralise good customers and overburden staff. In addition, the customers were already in great difficulty because they had no financial means to meet their leasing obligations. Instead, I believed we needed to build a new, healthier portfolio, while also expanding fee-based advisory work with lower risk. I had also abandoned my consultancy business when I joined MBSL, and proposed creating a new subsidiary to bring that kind of business into the bank. The board rejected it – understandably, given past failures with subsidiaries, including one in Nepal.

We decided that if our leasing operations were to grow, they needed to feel more connected to ordinary Sri Lankans. Research revealed that many people viewed us as an “English-speaking bank.” That perception alone discouraged potential customers.

So, we refreshed our leasing brand. The new logo carried the Sinhala word for “leasing,” applications were printed in Sinhala, and signboards carried both languages. Even the telephone operator’s greeting changed. Instead of the polished “Good morning, MBSL,” which sometimes intimidated Sinhala-speaking callers, we switched to “Ayubowan, MBSL.” It was friendly, respectful, and immediately accepted across all segments.

When an SME business owner comes for a lease, they have already selected the vehicle, and the decision is more based on ego than on a business requirement. We would discourage them and enlighten them that the vehicle does not match their requirements, and advise them to select a smaller one. They look unhappy, but they finally agree when presented with the maths of repayment.

We also organised short educational sessions for our customers on how to maintain vehicles, extend tyre life, the importance of the correct lubricants, and improve customer service. These simple initiatives created goodwill, strengthened customer relationships, and soon, the leasing business began to grow. At the same time, we were tough on recoveries, and some unpleasant moments included we seized a vehicle when a couple was on their honeymoon. The board, while pressuring me to recover, also constantly reminded me that no strong-arm tactics should ever be used.

Improving cash availability

Before I joined, two government institutions had agreed to provide debentures, with Treasury comfort letters. However, a condition required us to build a monthly sinking fund for repayment. To me, this made little sense. We were already short of operating cash. Locking more away would only weaken us further.

The head of finance had faithfully followed the rule. I instructed him to stop doing so and to use the funds for business expansion. When the board asked how we planned to repay the debentures, my answer was simple: growing organisations borrow when repayment comes due — that is how business operates.

We also began selling off our minority shareholdings from our share portfolio wherever possible even at a loss. The market was depressed, and those investments in shares contributed nothing to our survival. We retained only the Merchant Credit of Sri Lanka and divested the others. Gradually, liquidity improved, and operations stabilised.

The thorny bonus issue

Before my arrival, the board had approved bonuses despite the 1997 crisis. I was surprised how it happened soon after chalking up a billion rupee loss. However, just three months into my tenure, the board refused the December 1998 bonus. I found myself in a painful position. The EFC warned that withholding payment was risky because bonuses were written into appointment letters. Yet, reality was clear — we simply could not afford it.

I addressed the staff personally, explained the situation frankly, and announced the decision. The disappointment was visible everywhere. But given the circumstances, they accepted it.

There were more challenges and many more lessons still to come. In the next article, I will continue the story of how, step by step, we navigated those difficulties and rebuilt the organisation.

(The writer is a Consultant on Productivity and Japanese Management Techniques

Retired Chairman/Director of several listed and unlisted companies
Recipient of the APO Regional Award for Promoting Productivity in the Asia-Pacific Region
Recipient of the Order of the Rising Sun, Gold and Silver Rays from the Government of Japan
Email: bizex.seminarsandconsulting@gmail.com)

By Sunil G. Wijesinha ✍️

Continue Reading

Trending